Posted on 05/17/2006 5:54:17 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
May 17, 2006
If the Da Vinci Code was already feeding the flames of controversy with its challenge to the basic tenets of Christianity, actor Ian McKellen managed to throw a refinery tank's worth of gasoline on the fire on this morning's Today show, asserting that the Bible should carry a disclaimer saying that it is "fiction."
Matt Lauer, on his second day "On The Road With The Code," was in Cannes for the film festival, where the Code will have its debut. It has already been screened to some critics, who have given it decidedly mixed reviews.
As I reported here yesterday, NBC reporter Melissa Stark timidly dipped a toe in the sea of controversy when yesterday she interviewed Code director Ron Howard, asking how he reacted to the controversy the movie has created . . . for the Church! Sounding more like the Delphic oracle than a Hollywood director, Howard offered up some ambiguous prose about it being healthy thing for people to engage their beliefs.
Lauer took the bull of controversy more directly by the horns when he interviewed the cast and director Howard today. Said Lauer:
"There have been calls from some religious groups, they wanted a disclaimer at the beginning of this movie saying it is fiction because one of the themes in the book really knocks Christianity right on its ear, if Christ survived the crucifixion, he did not die for our sins and therefore was not resurrected. What I'm saying is, people wanted this to say 'fiction, fiction, fiction'. How would you all have felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?"
There was a pause, and then famed British actor Ian McKellen [Gandalf of Lord of the Rings], piped up:
"Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie. Not that it's true, not that it's factual, but that it's a jolly good story. And I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing after they've seen it."
With the camera focused on McKellen, one could hear a distinctly nervous laugh in the background, seeming to come from either actor Tom Hanks or director Howard. McKellen's stunning bit of blasphemy is likely to test the adage that all publicity is good publicity.
Finkelstein, recently a guest on the Lars Larson Show, lives in the liberal haven of Ithaca, NY, where he hosts the award-winning public-access TV show 'Right Angle'. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
Why are they so secretive? One possibility is that they merely claim to know God's will, but actually don't know any better than the rest of us.
The suggestion that Jesus was a heterosexual man and married and had sex and had kids--as was usual for men in his time--is blasphemous is quite curious to me. It is surely plausible. Not proven, but plausible.
The idea that a book written 2000 years ago, +/-500 years, is not allegorical, not fiction is curious. I mean, talking snakes coming up and speaking in Aramaic to Eve is quite a story. We don't even know whether Eve understood Aramaic, Hebrew, Babylonian or Egyptian. I guess that talking snakes are quite clever and don't use Babelfish.
But then a few generations later, we are told, the "Intelligent Designer" got really annoyed. Noah's Flood story. Nobody really believes this, and it contradicts everything we know in historical and present-day science. It also contradicts everything in morality--the idea that innocent fetuses, newborns, toddlers would be drowned is not an idea that appeals to serious Christians.
Ancient fictions and recent fictions can be put on the same level.
Yeah, so he admits he's openly afraid of fiction he doesn't like.
I bet if people were ripping out pages or burning the "Da Vinci Code" he'd be screaming bloody murder.
Why are 98% of actors so frickin' stupid?
"Hey, yo, Cunningham! It's not cool to diss on JC.
So listen up, nerds. Cut the crap. Alright, yeah, woh!"
Just saw this. Aw, come on. Do I really have to? This is silly.
On an every day level, out of the millions upon millions of Christians there are a certain number who are extremely evil and a much larger number who...well let us say...are marginal. That's just how human beings are, Christian or otherwise.
On an institutional level I read that Armenians are telling Turks that the 1915 genocide was the fault of Jews. Don't know whether those are Christian or secular Armenians but that mentality was very common in among eastern european and near eastern christians in the late 1800's. It's what led to repeated pogroms...and was commonly the fault of local orthodox churchmen.
Odd, too how you start in on Jesus and end up in Eden.
If you chose to believe that humans are the random descendants of linking molecules on a hostile mudball, that is your choice. As you said, recent fictions...
I find it less improbable that the Son of God came to Earth as a child, grew up and died for the sins of humanity, was ressurected, and ascended into Heaven to take his rightful place.
Your mileage may vary.
But as a scientist, I am sure you can resolve all this. Just go find the body.
Noah's Flood story. Nobody really believes this, and it contradicts everything we know in historical and present-day science. It also contradicts everything in morality--the idea that innocent fetuses, newborns, toddlers would be drowned is not an idea that appeals to serious Christians.
As for the flood, there are surviving accounts of a great flood in many cultures, not just in the Bible. There is also evidence of catastrophic flooding in numerous places in the world, from the scablands of Washington state to the Mediterranean Sea.
As for what Christians find palatable in the Old Testament, read it, there is much modern people might find unseemly, like putting entire cities, man, woman, child, even livestock, to the sword. Not for the squeamish.
The New Testament, though, outlines a different era in relations with God, for those who are familliar with it.
Before dissing the Bible, read it. It will take longer than the DaVinci Code, but you seem to be a literate person and can probably handle it.
Keep in mind that the cities which were named there and lost to time have, for the most part, been found (Sodom and Gommorrah are exceptions) by archaeologists, and thus the accounts are substantiated to that extent.
Personally, I'd like to find the crossing point in the Red Sea--there should be some interesting artifacts there--considering an army was wiped out when the water came in.
As a practical matter, different fibers have different rates of wear, strengths, and elasticities. A fabric made from whole threads of different fibers (as opposed to blended fibers) is going to have wear characteristics which are less than optimal for the best fiber. Theoretically, it should fall apart faster than a fabric made from all the same fiber, or at least have weaknesses hidden by the stronger, more durable fiber which are not readily evident until it fails.
Not good for a desert dweller, either, imo. Better to have cloth made in toto from the weaker fiber and be aware of when it will need to be replaced.
Pssh. Everyone knows that if you have to use "Nazi" to make a point, you automatically lose the arguement.
Sorry if I'm repeating what has already been said. (I haven't read through all 200+ posts on this thread)
But I'm wondering if Ian would state that ALL books of faith should have a disclaimer of fiction. Think he has the balls to say that?
"So Ian, what about the Koran?"
When I was on the Lars Larson show yesterday, that's exactly the question I mentioned hoping that some enterprising reporter would ask McKellen!
Would you agree that there are millions upon millions of Atheists and a certain number who are extremely evil and a much larger number who are "marginal"?
That's the famous problem of human nature which has stymied all attempts to form moral and decent societies intent upon peaceful interaction.
I read the book. except for the first and last 50 pages, the rest of the piece (300+ pages) is as dull as watching paint dry, and its no surprise to me that critics don't like it. i dont see how they could make it remotely interesting without departing from the original story quite often.
O GREAT DISPLAY... MOUSE AND WHALE
and, for our legal beagles:
BLOGS IN N.Y. RAM DAN A NEW ONE. WHO? A TORT? NAH!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.